Your browser does not support inline frames or is currently configured not to display inline frames.
Sinop travel
situated on a narrow peninsula at Turkey’s northernmost
point, Sinop is like a Black Sea island with its
good-natured people and streets where time passes slowly.

Development of the Pontic Greek Dialect
Will Pontic Greek continue to be spoken? Bortone (2009)
believes Pontic Greek spoken in the Pontos in Asia Minor
today will probably disappear. The challenge is to keep the
Pontic Greek dialect alive. The more recent work of
researchers like Emeritus Professor Peter Mackridge,
Assistant Professor Pietro Bortone, Dr Theofanis Malkidis,
Ömer Asan, Dr Anthi Revithiadou and Dr Vassilios Spyropoulos
have increased our knowledge of the dialect.

Time For to Discover the Black Sea Highlands

Discover the Black Sea
highlands in September when time is suddenly
rent by a blanket of fog or the cry of a
vulture, and make the acquaintance of nature in
its most beautiful aspect.

Formation of the First Greek Settlements in the
Pontos
According to Liddell and Scott’s An Intermediate
Greek-English Lexicon, the word Pontos stands
for the sea, especially the open sea. In time,
the word Pontos became associated with the
north-eastern portion of Asia Minor that borders
the Black Sea (see Map 1).1 The Greeks first
called the Black Sea, Aξεινος πóντος
(inhospitable, unfriendly pontos), but later it
was called Εϋξεινος πóντος (hospitable pontos)
when they became aware of its wealth in the
lands around it ...

Crypto-Christians of the Trabzon Region
of Pontos

The crypto-Christians (also called cryphi,
klosti, Stavriotes, Kromledes) were Christian
Greeks who due to the Muslim persecution against
Christians publicly declared themselves Muslims.
However, in secret, they upheld their Greek
language, customs and Christian religious
practices...

Greek Penetration
of the Black Sea

Gocha R. Tsetskhladze

In 1948 R. Carpenter expressed his opinion that
the Black Sea was closed to Greek sailors
before c. 680 BC and only with the development
of the first powerfully oared vessel - the
pentekonter - were the Greeks able to pass
through the Bosphorus, thus explaining why there
is no archaeological evidence of colonization in
the Pontus area before about 680 BC
(Carpenter 1948). In response to this two
articles appeared written by B. W. Labaree
(1957)
and A. J. Graham (1958), in which it was
demonstrated that the Greeks were able to sail
into
the Black Sea. Graham based his thesis on
information provided by ancient authors, to the
effect that the first Greek colonies - Sinope
and Trapezus - had been founded as early as the
8th century BC. The lack of archaeological proof
for such early dates he explains by the fact
that the region to the south of the Black Sea
has not been investigated (Graham 1958, 31-3;
cf. Cook R. 1946, 71-2, 84). Soon more general
works appeared whose authors were more
cautious in their approach to the question of
the dating of the founding of the Greek colonies
on the Black Sea, trying to bring together
written sources and archaeology (Roebuck 1959,
116-24; Cook J. 1962, 53-9; Huxley 1966, 64-9,
etc.).
In 1971 Graham (1971, 39) reasserted his
original position, and he was supported by R.
Drews (1976) who took Graham's ideas one stage
further. The theory assumed its complete
form in the Chapter on colonization by Graham in
CAH in 1982 (CAH, 122-30, 160-2).
Archaeologists had more confidence in
archaeological material, placing the date of the
founding of the first colonies on the Black Sea
in the second half of the 7th century.'
In 1990 the controversy flared up again and the
opposed views of historians and
archaeologists were aired once more. Graham
accepts the first date given for the founding of
Sinope by the Milesians, before 756, as found in
Ps.-Skymnus (986-97), and accepts 756
(1990, 52-4; cf. CAH, 122-3) as the foundation
date for Trapezus, colony of Sinope (Xen. An.
IV. 8. 22). In support of the appearance of
Greeks in the Black Sea as early as the 8th
century
he calls attention to early pottery (Graham
1990, 53^1) alleged to have been found in
Histria
(the rim of an LG kotyle) (Graham 1990, 53; cf.
Alexandrescu 1978a, 21, no. 15) identified
by J. N. Coldstream as a Euboean copy of a
Corinthian type dated to c. 750-720 BC (1968,
377, no. 8). Another vessel is allegedly from
Berezan (Graham 1990, 53). It is a small
Geometric hydria bought from a dealer (cf.
Farmakovsky 1910, 227) called Attic or
Atticizing by Coldstream (1968, 337, no. 7) and
assigned by him to MG II (c. 800-760). Reference
is also made to fragments of Cypriot "White
Painted IV" ware from the Cypro-Archaic period
(c. 740-660) found at Histria and Berezan
(Graham 1990, 53-4; cf. Alexandrescu 1978a, 63,
no. 256; Demetrion 1978).
In response to this J. Boardman published a
short but very detailed article, in which he
clearly stated his purpose: "Whether there is
any archaeological evidence for earlier [8th
century] exploration or settlement is another
matter, but Graham has pressed claims which,
as I hope to show, cannot be upheld, since the
dating of the pottery or its pedigree are either
wrong or too dubious to be taken seriously,
however tempting they may seem" (1991, 387).
The author did, indeed, succeed in showing that
the 'fact' that the vessel had been found in
Berezan and in a tomb was merely the assertion
of a dealer, while excavation of that site over
many years had not produced any pottery earlier
than the late 7th century. "In the
circumstances such a dealer's provenance should
not be taken seriously" (Boardman 1991,
387; for the same opinion, see: Vinogradov Y. G.
1989, 35, Note 13). Fragments allegedly
originating from Histria, currently kept in the
Museum of Classical Archaeology in Cambridge,
were found in Al Mina, and it is possible "that
an unlabelled fragment could move from one tray
or box to another, in the course of an exercise
in comparison of colonial pottery" (Boardman
1991, 387-8). This opinion was supported by
Professor R. M. Cook of Cambridge, who
catalogued the fragments in 1961, despite the
fact that the fragments had been acquired in
1950. "It seemed to Cook improbable that an
excavator [Mme Lambrino] who was also a pottery
expert would have given away what was obviously
the earliest piece from the site" (Boardman
1991, 387). Moreover, the Cypro-Archaic pottery
is of the "Cypro-Archaic II" period, which may
bring it well down into the 6th century
(Boardman 1991, 389).2
After this it might have appeared that the
questions concerned had all been clarified, but
Graham, who considers that "it is bad method to
prefer an archaeological argumentum e
silentio to statements in literary sources" (CAH,
123), in December 1993 stressed in his paper
in Washington entitled "Greek and Roman
settlements on the Black Sea Coasts. Historical
Background" that archaeologists were unable to
agree amongst themselves over the chronology of
pottery: while criticizing Boardman's article in
OJA, he expressed his mistrust of archaeologists
and once again repeated his opinion regarding
the appearance of the Greeks in the Black Sea in
the 8th century BC.3 He agreed, however, that
the Histria pottery should be disregarded, and
implied that Boardman had "re-dated" the Cypriot
pottery, which is not the case.
What lies behind this controversy? The answer is
simple: written sources are contradictory
and offer differing dates for the founding of
one and the same Greek cities. The value of such
information has long been exhausted. In
archaeology the situation is far from ideal. No
strict
chronology for early Greek pottery has been
elaborated; the Greek cities on the southern
coasts of the Black Sea have not yet been
investigated for a number of objective and
subjective reasons. 'Western' scholars use, to a
limited degree, the achievements and
publications of new material from the
excavations of the last decade undertaken by
'eastern' archaeologists. At the same time
'eastern' scholars have only had access to
'western' literature for the last three to five
years.4 Yet more important is the fact that in
the archaeology of the Black Sea, owing to the
limited range and character of the
archaeological material now available, there are
more questions being asked than answers being
found. This region of the ancient world is today
a hotbed of 'scholarly wars' in which virtually
every scholar indulges his own subjective
opinion. We are, at present, too far removed
from the conclusion of a general academic
cease-fire in this region.5
Early and Precolonial Contacts

The tribes that inhabited the Black Sea region
had enjoyed some kind of contact with the
Aegean world since the beginning of the second
millennium BC. No Mycenaean pottery has
been found along the Black Sea coast and finds
at Masat, inland from Samsun (shoulder of
an LH IIIA2 stirrup jar) (Mellink 1984, 445;
1985, 558; Mee 1978, 132-3), cannot be seen
as penetration from the Black Sea: they are more
likely to have made their way there overland
(French 1982, with extensive bibliography on the
problem).6 Some Mycenaean-type objects
are known from West and North-West Pontic areas:
swords, spears and double axes of
Mycenaean types (Bouzek 1985, 31-5, 41-6, 213-4;
1990, 13-5). Aegean swords have been
found in Transcaucasia, gold roundels of the
Shaft Graves period and double-axes (Bouzek
1985, 35, 46, 82). These finds do not
demonstrate Mycenaean colonization of the Black
Sea
and are probably the result of royal trade
(along the Danube and in the Transcaucasian
region), which included, among the commodities,
amber (Kilian 1990, 465).
Stone anchors of the second half of the second
and beginning of the first millennia BC at
many points on the Bulgarian coast (Ropotamo,
Masalen Nos, Kaliakra, Sozopol, Nesebar)
have given rise to the view that native Thracian
chieftains sponsored sailing along the coast,
both long before and after the Greek
settlements.7 Some scholars see these as a sign
that Greek sailors penetrated as far as the
Black Sea as early as the Late Bronze Age (Bouzek
1990, 13; cf. Nibbi 1993).
The eastern part of the Black Sea region, where
Greek colonies appeared as early as the
mid-6th century, provides material to justify
the assumption that there were precolonial links
in the 8th-7th centuries. This includes the
so-called Caucasian bronze arc-shaped fibulae,
which probably appeared there in the 8th
century: Greek fibulae clearly played a large
part
their evolution, giving rise to the emergence in
the Caucasus of a local north-eastern
in variant, and it is evident that the Greek
models must have made their way to the region
along the southern coasts of the Black Sea (Bouzek
1983, 204-5; 1985, 153; 1990, 15; Voronov 1983).
For a long time bronze figurines of a sleeping
woman holding a child to her breast, from Samos
(Jantzen 1972, 80-5) and Nigvziani (Mikeladze
1985, 59-62; 1990, 63-6), and small bronze bells
from Samos, were believed to have been made in
the Caucasus (Jantzen 1972, 80-5; Boardman 1980,
240-1). M. Voyatzis, however, has doubts about
this and sees the figurine from Samos as being
of local Greek origin (1992, 262-9). Clay
figurines depicting two- and three-headed
fantastic animals from Vani, dating from the
8th-7th centuries, are also of debatable origin.
It is difficult to form a clear opinion: they
could have been made under the influence of
Luristan bronzes, or that of the Greek world,
where they are known from the 8th-7th centuries
on (Lordkipanidze 1991, 150-9, pi. 2a, b;
Tolordava 1990, 243-7, 298-301).
It is unlikely that these early relations were
of any regular kind (Buchholz 1983). It can
be assumed, with a good deal of probability,
that the Greeks knew the Black Sea as early as
the 8th century BC. This is indicated both by
archaeological material from Georgia, and by
the first information about Pontus in Greek
literature (Eumelus, fr. 2; Hesiod., Theog.,
337-340). Thus the 8th century appears to have
been a time of exploration (Huxley 1990,
200).
Greek mythological tradition links the first
contacts between the Greeks and the peoples
of Pontus in the story of the Argonauts' voyage
to Colchis in search of the Golden Fleece.
Some scholars place this myth in the category of
those that reflect history, and believe that
the voyage took place before the Trojan War.
They support this idea by reference to the fact
that Homer mentions the myth (Lordkipanidze
1966, 9-18; 1986, 15-47; Urushadze 1980,
21-28, etc.).8 They consider it to have been
second only in its popularity to that of the
Trojan
War (Lordkipanidze 1979, 4), and they are even
convinced that the "Journey of the Argonauts
was a journey after gold!" (Lordkipanidze 1984,
43).
I should like to approach this myth9 from the
archaeologist's viewpoint, to determine
whether or not it was so popular. It is
unjustified from the methodological point of
view to
see the myth as a reflection of reality - this
question is too delicate and complex (Brillante
1990; Sourvinou-Inwood 1987; Thomas E. 1976;
Thomas C. 1993, etc.) - especially when we
have it most fully presented only in Hellenistic
poetry, when the Greeks were already well
acquainted with Colchis.
Virtually all scholars, apart from the
Georgians, maintain that the land of Aia, where
the
Golden Fleece was to be found, had no real
geographical existence. For them, it is one of
those fantastic countries at the edge of the
world, which include the Isles of the Blessed,
the
Gardens of the Hesperides, the Island of
Erytheia, the mythical Ethiopia, most of the
countries
visited by Odysseus, the Dionysiac Nysa, Plato's
Atlantis, etc. With the growth of rationalism,
attempts were made to identify all these places.
Since Aia was imagined to lie somewhere in
the North and at the same time in the East
(closer to sunrise), it was finally identified
with
Colchis. The word aia is found in poetic speech
signifying 'earth, country' - but, of course,
a fabulous region must have borne a less
abstract, more expressive proper name. Moreover,
the Odyssey describes another locality with a
very similar name, the island of Aiaie, where
Aeetes' sister, the sorceress Circe, lived (Cook
J. 1962, 52; Astour 1967, 283-8; Huxley 1969,
60-79; Boltunova 1976, etc.).
When did the identification of Aia with Colchis
take place? Eumelus (c. 700) is the earliest
witness to its localization in Colchis beside
the River Phasis, which traditionally marked the
eastern boundary of the known world. This
identification points to the period of
increasing
exploration and colonization, when a New World
was fitted to old perceptions. The
identification was probably arbitrary. For
Eumelus (fr. 2) the River Phasis was the eastern
border of the known world, and in the myth of
the Argonauts Aia was also the eastern
kingdom. This identity probably became more
credible only thanks to Herodotus (VII. 193)
in the 5th century, when it was already known to
the Greeks that Colchis, like the mythical
Aia, was a 'gold-rich' country. It was then that
the wealth of gold and the Golden Fleece
merged together for the Greeks of Colchis, as a
single concept and image.10
To determine whether the myth of the Argonauts
was as widely popular as it is held to
have been by Georgian scholars, we must turn to
visual art." In architectural sculpture the
only scenes linked with the Argonauts are on the
so-called Sicyonian Treasury at Delphi, of
the second quarter of the 6th century (Ridgway
B. 1966, 196-7; 1993, 341-2; Szeliga 1986;
Griffin 1982, 92-119; cf. Voyatzis 1982, 32-3).
These need not be explained with reference to
the myth's popularity or to links with Colchis
itself. Such travel myths found their first
monumental expression in the western areas of
colonization and in the great pan-Hellenic
sanctuaries, especially Delphi, once the oracle
assumed the role of leader of colonists
(Ridgway B. 1991; Penglase 1994, 8).
Some twenty general scenes from the voyage have
been found dating from the 5th-2nd
centuries BC (LIMC 2, 593-7; Simon 1990, 227-9;
Olmos 1990, 231-4). Jason was depicted
57 times. The early depictions date from around
600, as does that on a Corinthian vase. Most
date from the 5th-4th centuries (LIMC 5, 630—7).
Medea was more popular in Roman than
Greek art. Only about ten depictions of her are
known in Greek art and six on Etruscan vases.
The early depictions on Etruscan vases date from
630-600, the early Greek ones from 530 BC, while
the rest are of the 5th-4th centuries (LIMC 6,
388-95; Sourvinou-Inwood 1990).
Altogether approximately 93 depictions of
subjects from the myth are known.13 It must be
judged poorly illustrated. Several vase
paintings indicate versions of myths that are
lost or
almost lost in literature (Schefold 1992,
183-97). Jason does not seem to be a very common
figure - he was an anti-hero (presented as such
by Apollonius Rhodius), helpless (LIMC 5,
630). It was only thanks to Medea, a barbarian
princess, that he was able to bring the Golden
Fleece to Greece and, again thanks to her,
become king of Corinth. Medea - a murderess with
a tragic destiny from a barbarian world - was
better known to the Greeks via tragedy (Kerenyi
1979, IO-^Q). The majority of the depictions are
from the 5th century, which again serves to
underline that Aia was probably then first
identified with Colchis. So the myth could not
reflect any voyage to the Black Sea allegedly
undertaken by Greeks in the 13th century.14 We
frequently want to believe the myths of the
Greeks more than they did themselves (Breamer
1987; Penglase 1994, 9-14; Henrichs 1987; Buxton
1994, 155-68).
Penetration of the Black Sea region by the
Greeks began in the second half of the 7th
century (Fig. 7.1 overleaf). This is linked in
the main with the colonizing endeavours of
Miletus, which was reputed to have possessed as
many as 75 or even 90 colonies. In the
words of Strabo: "the city [Miletus] is known to
many, and mainly thanks to the large number
of its colonies, since the whole of Pontus
Euxinus, Propontis and many other places have
been settled by Milesians" (XIV. 1. 6). What
follows is a series of observations on some
aspects of the three archaic stages of Milesian
colonization.15
The First Greek Colonies
The question as to the identity of the first
Greek colonies in the Black Sea is
controversial.
Some scholars have more faith in written sources
(Graham 1958; CAH; Drews 1976), and
others in archaeological ones (Boardman 1980,
242); the controversy focuses on Sinope. We have
accounts by two ancient authors Eusebius and
Pseudo-Skymnus. Most troublesome is the 756
foundation-date given by Eusebius (II. 81) for
Trapezus and, by implication, a date thereabouts
for Sinope, its mother city. Eusebius, however,
dates the foundation of Sinope to the 37th
Olympiad (631/630). Pseudo-Skymnus (941-952)
mentions an earlier foundation of Sinope by
Habrondas, which was destroyed by the Kimmerians,
to be refounded later by two exiles from
Miletus, Kretinus and Kous, when the Kimmerians
were pillaging Asia. Some scholars consider that
Sinope was founded in the first half of the 8th
century BC by the Corinthians, others that it
was founded by the second half of the 7th
century, and a third group by the end of the 7th
century, and so on (Hind 1988; Kacharava and
Kvirkveliya 1991,
239^42).
Without dwelling on the Kimmerian advance into
Asia I should like to draw attention to
one point. Virtually all scholars refer to the
account by Herodotus (I. 15; 104; 109) and hold
that the Kimmerians used the Maeoto-Colchian
(eastern) route. The second account, which
deserves our confidence, is usually ignored,
namely Strabo's (I. 3. 21). According to Strabo
the Kimmerians advanced along the western shore
of the Black Sea. Archaeological material
supports this. The most important question is
also controversial - identification of Kimmerian
culture (Sulimirski 1960; Kvirkveliya 1985;
Ivantchik 1993). Thus it is inappropriate to
speak
of two different Sinopes - Sinope I and Sinope
II - in other words of the founding of Sinope
in two stages: before and after the Kimmerian
campaign. It is unlikely that one controversial
issue will be resolved with the help of another.

Fig. 7.1 Map of the Black Sea showing major
Greek cities.

Excavation at Sinope (modern Sinop), which
occupies a peninsula site with a superb
harbour, is complicated by the fact that it has
since been built over. Smallscale excavations
have unearthed a cemetery. The pottery from the
graves is largely from East Greece with a
little Corinthian. All pottery dates from the
late-7th century to a little after 600 BC and
the
Phrygian pottery that has been found attests to
close relations with the peoples of the
interior.

The same can be said of Amisos (Samsun) (Akurgal
and Budde 1956, 9; Boysal 1959; Hind
1964, 174-5; 1984, 95; Boardman 1980, 254-5).16
We have no archaeological information
about Trapezus. G. Huxley's recent study shows
that "neither excavations nor Eusebian
chronography confirm the notion of 8th-century
settlement at Trapezus" (Huxley 1990, 200).17
Among the earliest Milesian colonies in the
Black Sea region are Histria in the West and
Berezan in the North. They were both founded on
peninsulae, were well protected and had
convenient harbours.18 Written sources offer a
variety of dates. For Histria it is 656/5
(Eusebius) and the end of the 7th century
(Pseudo-Skymnus).
Excavation in Histria has yielded 36 items of
Middle Wild Goat Class pottery, which go
back to c. 630 BC, between the dates given by
the literary sources. In any case, Histria
appears to have been a fully viable centre at
the end of the 7th century (Alexandrescu 1978a,
19; 1978b; Bouzek 1990, 21-5; Coja 1990, 160;
Dmitriu and Alexandrescu 1973; Dupont
1983).
The settlement on Berezan, which was identified
with Borysthenites (cf. Hdt. IV. 17; 24;
78)19 is given a foundation date of 646/5 by
Eusebius. The earliest examples of East Greek
pottery found on the modern island of Berezan
can be dated to the second quarter of the 7th
century: they are, however, very few and
scattered (fragments of kylikes with birds and
geometric decoration) (Kopeikina 1973, 240). The
bulk of the pottery dates from the second
half of the 7th century. All the fragments were
found in occupation deposits: L. Kopeikina
provides the following numbers for fragments of
different classes of archaic pottery from the
1962-79 excavations, sector G and the NW sector
together: Wild Goat (Milesian, Clazomenian and
North Ionian) - 1083; Fikellura - 200; Chiot -
123; Ionian banded-ware - 536; Clazomenian Black
Figure - 43; Corinthian - 125; Attic
Black-Figured - 552; Attic
Red-Figured - 8 (Kopeikina 1986, 42). This
pottery shows that the settlement was founded
by the Milesians no later than the third quarter
of the 7th century and possibly nearer the
middle of it (Kopeikina 1979, 107).
The first settlers lived in dugouts or
semi-dugouts. The 1989 excavation revealed a
rectangular pit-shelter (no. 51) 3.8 x 5.0m and
1m deep. East Greek painted pottery dates this
complex to the last quarter of the 7th century,
making it the earliest reliably dated habitation
area on the site (Treister and Vinogradov 1993,
539). An important find was a hoard of coins,
which included coins of Miletus dating from the
last third of the 7th century (Karyshkovskii
and Lapin 1979).
The question as to the nature of the settlement
on the modern island of Berezan is
controversial. The scholars most likely to have
resolved this problem consider that the
settlement had been an emporion (Kopeikina 1979,
109; cf. Vinogradov Y. G. 1989, 60-62).
This is borne out by the fact that in the 7th
century the settlement did not have its own
agricultural area - chora. Fragments of early
pottery have been found deep in Berezan's
hinterland (Nemirov, Trachtemirov, etc.)
(Boardman 1980, 243-4).